Partnerships in Character Education State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001
citizenship
civic virtue
caring
giving
trustworthiness
fairness justice respect
responsibility
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001
Lessons Learned
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
2008
This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED-04-CO-0072/0001 with support from Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation; Contract No. ED-03-PO-2981 with support from Caliber Associates;
and with support from Bill Duncan, consultant to the Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, U.S. Department of Education. Rita Foy Moss served as the contracting
officer’s representative (COR) for Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, and
Paul Kesner served as the COR for Caliber Associates. The content of this report
does not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S. Department of
Education, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products or
organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This publication also
contains URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations. This
information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of
Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance,
timeliness or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of
information or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it
intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.
U.S. Department of Education
Margaret Spellings
Secretary
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Deborah A. Price
Assistant Deputy Secretary
March 2008
This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or
in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the
citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Character Education and Civic Engagement Technical Assistance Center,
Partnerships in Character Education, State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001: Lessons Learned,
Washington, D.C., 2008.
To download this publication:
See the Department’s Web sites:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/charactered/lessons.html and
http://www.cetac.org/documents/Publications/DOE_StatePilot.pdf.
On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large
print or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s
Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.
ii
Contents
List of Illustrations
iv
Acknowledgments
v
Introduction
Methodology
Results
1
2
2
Key Findings—The Lessons Learned
Project Goals
Successful Strategies
Challenges
4
4
5
7
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Recommendations
Looking to the Future: Ongoing Support for Character Education
9
9
10
10
State Roll Call: What the States Accomplished With Pilot Project
Grants, 1995–2001
12
Appendix A. Analysis of State Pilot Project Information
39
Appendix B. U.S. Department of Education Additional Resources
Related to Character Education
49
Bibliography
50
iii
Illustrations
Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 8.
Table 1.
Character Education 1995–2001 State Pilot Project Goals by
Number of Grantees Who Selected the Goal, and by Category
40
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Project Strategy
42
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Program Approach
43
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Project Focus
44
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Successful Implementation Factor
45
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Data Collection Strategy
46
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Materials or Resources Developed
47
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Sustainability Factors Thought to Be of
Most Importance
48
Number and Percentage of Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Project Grantees by Goal
41
iv
Acknowledgments
The Department is pleased to report this information about the Partnerships in
Character Education State Pilot Projects and congratulates each of the grantees for its
effort toward implementing community-based character education in our nation's
public schools.
We express sincere thanks to the grantees for the enthusiasm and spirit they showed
in sharing their lessons learned in implementing character education and for the time
they spent providing information for this report. These early projects pioneered
approaches to character education frameworks, processes, methodology, and
evaluation—paving the way for a renewed commitment to character education in our
nation's schools.
We are especially grateful to Diane Brooks, first project director for the California
Partnership for Character Education State Pilot Project; Kristie Fink, project director
for the Utah Community Partnership for Character Development State Pilot Project;
and Sally Caldwell and Robert Moody, who were part of Missouri’s Character
Education Pilot Project team, for their thoughtful and thorough comments. As the
language of the legislation envisioned, this has been a partnership across America.
v
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Introduction
C
HARACTER includes the emotional, intellectual and moral qualities of a person or group as
well as the demonstration of these qualities in prosocial behavior. Character education is an inclusive
term encompassing all aspects of how schools, related social institutions and parents can support the
positive character development of children and adults. Character education teaches the habits of
thought and deed that help people live and work together as families, friends, neighbors,
communities and nations.
Throughout the history of public education in America, our schools have reflected the values and
beliefs of the communities they serve. Instruction and lessons in the classroom frequently reinforced
these ideas while delivering the basic skills and knowledge of the curriculum. Today, this heritage is
reflected with a new emphasis on character education.
The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 created the Partnerships in Character Education
Pilot Project (Pilot Project; see Sec. 10103) and authorized up to a total of 10 grants annually to
state education agencies (SEAs) for the design and implementation of character education projects.
The Pilot Project program is supported by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S.
Department of Education.
The legislation included a specification that the states must involve parents, students and
members of the community in the design and implementation of grant projects. It also called for
comprehensive evaluations of programs developed by grantees. The law specified certain elements of
character to be the focus of grant projects and deemed it important that local communities define
those elements. These elements as listed in the law are: caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice,
fairness, respect, responsibility and trustworthiness. These traits could be supplemented by other
elements identified at the local level. The legislation required that character education be integrated
into the curriculum and called for the training of teachers. The state agencies were required to
provide technical assistance to local education agencies (LEAs) in implementing character education.
Additionally, the legislation called for grantees to establish state clearinghouses to provide
information on model programs, materials and other resources that SEAs and LEAs could use in
implementing character education.
The Pilot Project also provided funding for SEAs to join with local schools, parents, students and
communities to design and implement character education projects. Under the Pilot Project,
program grants were awarded to 45 states and the District of Columbia. The pilot projects were
initiated across the country from 1995 to 2001, with the most recent of the five-year grants ending
in 2006. Many of the programs funded by these grants continue today.
The results presented in this report are the lessons learned as educators, parents and communities
implemented character education in schools across the states. Knowing what the states did during
the Pilot Project to support implementation efforts provides important background as additional
SEAs and LEAs go forward with the Department’s current support for character education.
1
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Methodology
Partnerships in Character Education, State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001: Lessons Learned summarizes
the results of the projects as reported to the U.S. Department of Education by the grantees through a
variety of sources. Information for this report was assembled from reviews of project performance
and evaluation reports, from discussions with grantees, and from an analysis of grantee responses to a
survey from the Department. The Pilot Project grantees reported accomplishments that contributed
to the continuation of developing and sustaining character education in schools, communities and
the states after the grants ended. The states also tested activities that enabled them to assess character
education program success and to document the challenges to effective implementation.
As part of the process of preparing this Pilot Project report, the Department asked each grantee
to respond to a survey that listed a number of descriptors regarding the components of their separate
projects. Respondents were allowed to check as many items in each category as applied to their grant
projects. Appendix A (beginning on p. 39) contains a basic analysis of the reporting of those factors
that were mentioned most frequently by the grantees as important to their projects, with a summary
of results provided below.
Distinctions may be helpful in understanding two aspects related to information in this report.
First, the report refers to two different federal grant programs related to character education. The
Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project relates to the legislative time period of 1995–2001.
Because these grants were funded for up to five years, the last group of grantees has just completed
their projects within the last two years. For the purpose of this report, this entire group will be
referred to as Pilot Project grants. Beginning in 2001, new legislation created the current initiative,
Partnerships in Character Education Program (PCEP), which was authorized as part of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB; see Sec. 5431). In this report, this program will be referred to by its acronym,
PCEP.
Second, program and project are not used interchangeably in this report. Program is defined as a
course of academic study, a curriculum or a system of academic and related activities (e.g., a servicelearning program). Some states report on a “menu” of programs, which is usually a list of approved
curricula from which local districts could select to implement during the funding period. Others
mention a “framework for a comprehensive process” or “a comprehensive approach,” indicating a set
of strategies and curriculum that involve students and key people who influence them—parents,
teachers, administrators, and community members. Project refers to a planned set of activities within
a given time frame that includes defined goals, objectives and deadlines; in this case, as set out in a
written proposal to a department of education at the federal or state level.
Results
What emerged from this process was evidence of a high degree of agreement among the
projects—not only on what they tried to do, but how they tried to accomplish it, and what impact it
had. For example, every project used professional development of staff as an essential means to
achieving the goals of the project (see exhibit 2, p. 42).
2
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
This report provides: 1) background information regarding the importance of character
education in schools; 2) key findings and trends as reported by the state pilot projects, including
goals, successful practices and challenges; and 3) recommendations based on the reports from the
states. The State Roll Call section provides a state-by-state summary of each pilot project, which
often provides details about specific challenges or effective program components. Finally, the
appendix displays an analysis of the data reported in a series of illustrations that include project
goals, type of project strategy, program approaches, type of project focus, successful
implementation factors, type of data collection, materials or resources developed, and
sustainability factors. [Click on any type of illustration to view its contents.]
3
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Key Findings—The Lessons Learned
T
HE SIGNIFICANT results reported by a majority of the states that had state Pilot Project
grants included (1) the development of character education models and (2) the exploration of
strategies for implementing character education. The pioneering efforts of grantees during the Pilot
Project revealed common themes in the state projects, which encompassed many similar goals, found
certain practices widely successful, and identified common needs for future efforts.
While state initiatives supported by the grants used existing national resources (such as
measurement tools, curricula and training techniques), they also created their own. These initiatives
provided some preliminary and anecdotal data on the impact of character education programs. In
some cases, the projects allowed grantees to leverage additional funding from other public and
private sources, as noted in the State Roll Call section. The grants led to new character education
resources, such as journal publications, professional networks, professional workshops and
conferences. Finally, many grant efforts have resulted in state clearinghouses to support character
education at the local level.
The impact of this federal funding is apparent, as almost all states reported that their efforts in
character education have continued since the grants ended. Summarized here are the goals,
successful practices and challenges reported by the states. More detailed descriptions of each state’s
pilot project are available at: http://www.cetac.org/resources/pilotgrantees.cfm.
Project Goals
In the process of seeking a grant, SEAs developed specific goals for their character education
efforts. The nine most commonly identified goals set out in grant applications were:
1. Changing students’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding elements of
character education;
2. Reducing the number of disciplinary incidents in schools;
3. Improving academic achievement;
4. Improving the climate of individual schools;
5. Increasing community involvement in character education;
6. Increasing family involvement by gaining parental input and support, and by linking the
character education effort to the home;
7. Increasing school attendance by making the school environment safer, friendlier and
more positive;
8. Increasing opportunities for service-learning programs, which allow students to employ
character education concepts in real-life situations; and
9. Changing teacher knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and actions related to character
education.
4
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
See exhibit 1 (p. 40) and table 1 (p. 41) for more information on project goals [to go to
these illustrations, click on the exhibit 1 and table 1 in bold].
Successful Strategies
Perhaps the most important lesson to emerge from the Pilot Project reports was that successful
character education requires the participation of the entire community. Collectively, the states
reported that implementation must include the entire school community and be integrated
throughout the entire school curriculum and culture. This was achieved by:
Bringing school staff, parents, students and community representatives together to
identify and define the elements of character to be emphasized;
Providing training for staff on integrating character education into the culture of the
school;
Forming partnerships with parents and communities so consistent messages would be
sent to students; and
Modeling character traits by all adults in the school, home and community.
There were many strategies common among the state projects. Here, in the order of frequency,
are the strategies that were most often reported by the states:
Professional Development. Every report emphasized the importance of professional
development for all staff. The projects reported substantial efforts to train school staff in what
constitutes quality character education as well as how the efforts could be assessed. Training
topics focused on connecting character education to curriculum and state standards. Schools
used professional development time allocated in district calendars as well as seminar events,
conferences and online courses for training teachers.
Curriculum Development. The states reported that successfully implemented projects involved
the creation or adoption of curriculum to teach character education and strategies to integrate it
into the curriculum. Whether created wholly in the state or adapted from existing national or
local resources, the materials and methodology springing from state efforts allowed character
education programs to move from vision to reality.
Consensus Building and Community Engagement. Although most schools and communities
found common themes in terms of the characteristics they identified as essential character traits,
the grantees often noted the importance of the process of building consensus about these traits as
well as the process to instill them. The effort to bring together relevant members of the
community, especially parents and educators, increased the feeling of ownership in the character
education effort. The reports indicated that community leaders provided vital support and
vision for character education by clearly articulating the importance of character development to
the youths of a community. These leaders reported that youths’ community participation was an
important positive influence on student acceptance of character education. Projects that
reported successful implementation of character education often included community
participants in program design and implementation. In all of the above examples, community
5
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
members who were involved in the grants were asked to make a commitment to be part of the
character education process.
Steering Committees. Since successful character education requires community involvement,
steering committees were used by most state projects to provide a vehicle for involving a broad
base of community members, which include representatives from law enforcement, chambers of
commerce, businesses, social service and health agencies, faith-based organizations, parents and
students. Every state participating in the grant program used some type of steering committee,
task force, advisory council or advisory committee to ensure that key community decisionmakers and leaders were engaged in the effort. Although the composition of such committees
varied among states, each structure allowed individuals in the community to have an investment
in the success of the project.
Family Involvement. Based on the reports from the states, when families had opportunities to
participate in their children’s character education programs and received support in doing so, the
programs were more likely to be perceived successful. Effective projects allowed families to
participate by offering them training or by including them in the design and delivery of the
initiatives. Families were included in state efforts by: acting as resources for schools, being
informed of developments through newsletters or reports, and serving on steering committees.
Student Engagement. Examples of student involvement in character education reported by the
states included service-learning programs and leadership roles in character education efforts. A
number of states created opportunities for students to learn while performing communityassistance projects. Some states provided leadership roles for students through creating studentedited newsletters about character, developing student advisory councils related to character
education, and providing opportunities to serve as mentors and role models.
A final, overarching strategy emerged during discussions with the states about their reports—a
concept that most states agreed was an appropriate summary for successful practices:
Comprehensive Approach. Most grantees emphasized the importance of changing a school’s entire
culture in order to make a difference in building character in students. In fact, integrating character
education into the entire curriculum was actually a requirement for receiving a Pilot Project grant;
the state reports validated the requirement. The consensus conclusion was that to be successful,
character education must be comprehensive and has to become a part of every aspect of a school’s
environment. Further, the states reported that their character education projects could not work if
they were not consistent with state academic content standards. Most reports indicated that the goal
was to ensure that character education is not just a single subject, but rather something that is an
integral part of school life.
See Appendix A, exhibit 2 (p. 42), for more on successful strategies.
6
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Challenges
The information provided by the Pilot Project grantees also identified challenges to successful
implementation of character education. A compilation of the challenges revealed that many of the
states faced similar problems. Because many states found successful ways of meeting these
challenges, a primary objective of this report is to summarize the information so other schools and
communities can benefit from the lessons learned. Feedback from the grantees and their reports
describe common challenges and potential strategies for overcoming them:
Time Constraints. Developing a new effort required significant time of all staff and particularly
of teachers, who already had numerous responsibilities demanding their attention. Curriculum
development and publicizing the effort also took time. In response to this challenge, project
coordinators emphasized the importance of training to effectively integrate character education
into the curriculum. High-level training focused on how a teacher operates a class or how a
principal leads a school. Teachers also were encouraged to look for “teachable moments” during
lessons to discuss or engage students in talking about character traits and values. In some areas,
training events were held throughout the year to allow staff to attend without significant school
interruptions. Schools also made an effort to narrow their focus initially so that the effort did
not require new commitment that would be overwhelming.
Assessment. The challenges of evaluating the projects and assessing the effectiveness of specific
programs were commonly expressed in the state reports. At the beginning of the Pilot Project,
very few valid evaluation instruments for character education were available. The assessment
process was different from state to state because no uniform assessment model was available. In
some cases, schools lacked baseline data to make comparisons and, thus, measure improvement.
To accomplish the goals of their projects, the states had to strike a balance between achieving
implementation and evaluation goals at the local level. However, the states’ efforts did develop
some assessment tools and measures. The reports of the Pilot Project indicated that more
sophisticated measures would be used in future implementations of character education, which
has been substantiated by the projects that are ongoing in current PCEP grants.
Academic Priorities. States reported discovering that development of good student character
and positive school climate are at the core of learning and help to create an environment in
which academic achievement is maximized. They had to respond to criticism that a character
education program detracts from academic priorities and state learning requirements. They
pointed out that the authorizing legislation for the grants required character education activities
be integrated into the existing curriculum rather than added on as a separate, competing demand
on time and attention. The states also reported that schools commonly made excellent progress
toward fully integrating character education into all aspects of a school, including policies,
teaching practices, curriculum, assessment, literature and informal settings (e.g., lunchroom,
after-school activities, sporting events and school buses).
Staff Support. The states learned that it takes truly significant commitment from school faculty
and staff, as well as from those in the general community, for character education to be
successful. They learned that it cannot succeed if there is a lack of cooperation between
administrators and teachers or between school officials and community leaders. They said
7
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
administrative support, particularly of the school principals, was a key factor. Project
coordinators strove to include community, faculty and staff participation in planning activities
and frequently elicited input from each of these sources frequently. Disruption in
implementation caused by high staff turnover was another challenge reported by the states. The
challenge was addressed by offering staff development on a continuous basis so the project could
continue even when there were staff changes. Participation among all or most staff members was
another technique to alleviate the challenge of having a key person leave the team.
Budget Constraints. Although the Pilot Project grants funded activities for up to five years,
sustaining any significant education program thereafter required new or reallocated funding. In
many cases, the character education project had to compete with other state budget priorities.
States faced with this challenge learned to use the community as an alternative source of funds.
States also attempted to hold down costs by producing reusable materials, by expanding the use
of the Internet for resources, and by increasing the use of technology for training and
communication. Some grantees suggested that having a project with a more narrow focus or
requiring more stringent accountability to the funding agency would have helped address budget
constraints.
8
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Conclusions and Recommendations
A
NEW EMPHASIS on character education at elementary and secondary levels in our
education system was the most important result of the Pilot Project. Federal support brought
character education to the forefront as an important topic of discussion in schools, communities,
teacher training efforts, college education departments, and in the national arena. The grant funding
encouraged states to commit staff time and resources to character education. Some states reported
that this contributed indirectly to the implementation of state legislation requiring that schools pay
attention to character development as part of their work toward educating young people. Today, the
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) reports that 27 states have statutes that mandate or
encourage character education be taught in school (NCSL, 2007).
The reports by the states in the Pilot Project expressed two common occurrences. First, the
grants funded the development and initial testing of site-based character education models for local
schools. Second, the grants contributed to increased awareness of the local school’s mission to
provide character education in the community, which resulted in closer collaboration of schools,
home and community, as well as the development of shared visions and ways of speaking about good
character.
The Pilot Project grants enabled the states to cast a wide net in designing and implementing
character education. They could experiment and innovate. During the multiyear projects, the states
moved from the early stages of development and gaining experience to the stage of evaluation of
programs and ideas so that best practices could be identified.
The Pilot Project grants evolved into an effort that is now ongoing in nearly all the states. In
many states, models for character education have been developed and undergone initial testing. In
addition, because of the grant efforts, publications and other informational resources are available for
teachers. Curricula have been developed that allow character education to be integrated with other
academic standards. Thus, many programs developed during the Pilot Project grants are in their
“second generation.”
NCLB provided additional funding for the Department’s successor, the PCEP, for both state and
local education authorities. Ninety-seven projects, in addition to the pilots focused upon in this
report, are now in various stages of implementation, including a number with scientific researchbased evaluation plans to measure more rigorously the impact of the programs.
Conclusions
The Pilot Project legislation authorized by Congress in 1994 was an important first step in
defining and promoting the shared responsibility of character education. This initial effort was
fruitful—and helped other states and localities recognize their responsibility. “Character education”
emerged as an inclusive concept for dealing with numerous ways in which schools and communities
could support the development of character in children and youths. While character development
remains primarily a family responsibility, results of the Pilot Project indicate that schools and
individual classrooms have direct and significant influence; that the entire community must be
involved; and that it is truly a shared responsibility among students, parents, teachers and the
community at large.
9
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Recommendations
Seven important needs were identified and discussed during the Department’s analysis of
information provided by the states that participated in the Pilot Project:
1. Sharing Success—The stories of both the successes and the challenges of the state efforts
should be compiled and made available to educators—hence, the creation of this publication.
Such an effort ultimately could result in a model resource that gives general and flexible
guidelines for the development of character education programs.
2. Promoting of Leadership—Ways to encourage and sustain leadership for character
education must be found. State reports indicated that strong, visible leadership at both the
state and local levels was essential to integrating character education into a school’s culture
and curriculum.
3. Evaluating the Effects—The relative impact on school climate, teacher efficacy,
involvement of parents and community, and other components of character education
programs should be measured to determine the level of success of each, using both process
and outcome evaluation methods and valid, reliable survey instruments.
4. Developing Secondary School Programs—There should be more focus on developing
models for character education in middle and high schools.
5. Continuing Research—Scientific research studies should continue in order to provide
scientifically based evaluation of character education processes and programs, thus increasing
knowledge about the potential effect of strategies on outcomes.
6. Standardizing Student Outcome Data—The reports of the states in the Pilot Project
provided anecdotal evidence and some formal summative evaluations that indicated that
students experienced great benefits from the character education programs, leading to safer
schools and improved academic achievement. However, there is a need for standardized
measurements and reports about changes in student outcomes as they relate to the impact of
character education.
7. Ensuring Community Involvement—Because it is clear that only efforts with high levels of
community and parental involvement are likely to be successful, character education
programs and processes must be broad-based and adaptable so that all members of a
community can identify with and participate in them.
Looking to the Future: Ongoing Support for Character Education
To continue the Department’s support of character education, PCEP was authorized in 2001 as
part of NCLB and was significantly enhanced with a major increase in annual funding from up to $8
million to $25 million per year. Now, instead of just SEAs, LEAs also could apply for grants,
allowing individual school districts to gain support to develop programs at the grassroots level.
The program also was enhanced by a provision giving full authority to grantees to select the
elements of character addressed in the grant projects. It has continued the emphasis on partnerships
between home, school and community, as well as the focus on integrating character education into a
10
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
school's curricula and teaching methods. Projects now are required to be consistent with state
academic content standards, to be founded on scientifically based research, and to include students
with disabilities.
Today, PCEP grants authorized by NCLB are helping local school districts nationwide—as part
of our shared responsibility for character education.
11
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
State Roll Call: What the States Accomplished With
Pilot Project Grants, 1995–2001
L
OCAL EFFORTS and initiatives were key to the success of character education.
Therefore, one step in preparing this report was to ask for input from states that received a grant
under the Pilot Project. Each of the 46 grantees responded to surveys seeking information about
significant accomplishments, lasting contributions to character education, activities that were
effective, and challenges to effectiveness. Information in this report was assembled by the
Department from analysis of grantee responses to that survey, from review of project performance
and evaluation reports, and from discussions with grantees.
State responses illustrated significant accomplishments of the Pilot Project grants. First, the
grants funded the development and initial testing of a number of character education models for
schools. Second, the grants contributed to increased awareness of the schools’ mission to provide
character education in the community, which resulted in closer collaboration of schools, home and
community, as well as the development of shared visions and ways of speaking about character.
State initiatives supported by the grants provided new resources, such as measurement tools, new
curricula and training techniques. These initiatives created pilot, exploratory and anecdotal data on
the impact of character education programs. In some cases, the projects allowed grantees to leverage
additional funding from other public and private sources. The grants also have helped to create
other resources, such as journals, professional networks, professional workshops and conferences.
Finally, many grant efforts have resulted in creation of state clearinghouses to support character
education at the local level.
What follows is a brief summary of each state’s Partnerships in Character Education Pilot grant.
Each state summary is followed by a person’s contact information, the state’s department of
education Web site, and any Web sites with dedicated character education Web pages or
information.* Web sites were current as of March 2008.
*All state Web site addresses following each state report can be clicked for direct access. However, if you have difficulty with
access due to a dial-up connection, please copy the address and paste it directly into the URL space on your computer screen.
If the Web address has more than one line, copy each line of the address only to the last character of the line, and carefully paste
it directly next to the previously copied characters in the URL space.
If you have any difficulty, please contact CETAC at 866-402-3822 for assistance.
12
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Alabama
The Alabama Character Education Project
2001–05
Alabama’s grant focused on the identification of educators from across the state to develop best
practices and training for character education. These educators became part of the state training
corps and began presenting at the annual State Character Education Showcase, where successful
strategies and materials are shared, in the first year of the grant. These trainers also were available
throughout the state to provide instruction on a comprehensive character education framework, best
practices in instruction, and a menu of resources aligned to state-required character traits for students
to know about and understand. In 1995, the Alabama legislature passed an act (Code of Alabama
1975, sec. 16-6B-2[h]) that requires public schools to spend not less than 10 minutes a day on
instruction related to character and civic education. The grant provided resources to help meet this
state requirement. An important component of the Alabama effort was the funding of school sites
where best practices, training and resource development could take place. When individual partners
shared their best ideas with other partners, the resulting concepts proved invaluable in the training of
the educator corps.
Carol Crawford
State Web site
ccrawford@alsde.edu
http://www.alsde.edu
Alaska
The Character Education Program for Alaska
1998–2001
The activities sponsored by the grant were coordinated by the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development. The department disseminated character education materials statewide,
including a course curriculum developed at the University of Alaska, which delivered credited
courses for teachers and other training for parents and members of the community. The T.O.P.S.
(Training of Promoters and Storytellers) for Building Assets program, an ongoing effort, was
administered with the Association of Alaska School Boards, a department partner. Particular success
stemmed from pilot programs developed in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) and Chugach school
districts. The Chugach program integrated character education into the curriculum and received the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 2001 for performance excellence and quality
achievement.
Paul R. Prussing
State Web site
paul.prussing@alaska.gov
http://www.eed.state.ak.us
13
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Arizona
Arizona Partnerships in Character Education
2001–04
Because Arizona schools had no state funds for character education, the Pilot Project grant gave
schools the necessary resources to develop character education programs and increased the visibility
of these programs throughout the state. The grant allowed local school districts to integrate
character education into individual school discipline and improvement plans. Thus, character
education became a part of the foundation of local schools. Arizona found that a comprehensive
approach to character education was important and integral to the school environment. One initial
challenge involved the logistics of working with a university partner, although increased
communication and collaboration alleviated this challenge.
Tammy Linn
State Web site
tammy.linn@azed.gov
http://www.ade.az.gov/charactered
Arkansas
Partnership for Character-Centered Teaching in Arkansas
2001–03
Arkansas concentrated on Character-Centered Teaching, which helped integrate character
development throughout the curricula. The emphasis on character education in the state resulted in
legislation that requires the Arkansas Department of Education to provide resources (e.g., training, a
handbook) for all schools to implement character-centered teaching. The grant supported statewide
character education training and the creation of a handbook entitled Character-Centered Teaching:
Six Steps to Becoming a Model Program (Marrazo, n.d.) for schools. All Arkansas school districts have
been trained in the implementation and integration of character education. State evaluation of
character education helped assess the effectiveness of programs before further implementation. The
grantee noted, however, that implementation was more difficult at the higher-grade levels than in
elementary schools due to the materials not being age appropriate. To remedy this, teachers were
shown how to revamp character education activities, thereby making them more appropriate for
higher grades.
Reginald Wilson
State Web site
Reginald.Wilson@arkansas.gov
http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/cct.html
14
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
California
California Partnership for Character Education
1995–2000
The California Department of Education formed a partnership with the Sacramento County Office
of Education, the Center for Youth Citizenship (CYC) and six schools districts to carry out a grant
heavily based on staff development for teachers and community members to implement character
education at participating school sites. Due to the success of California's innovative curricular
frameworks, California’s application focused on the integration of character education in all K–12
curricula, particularly history-social science and English-language arts. For example, highlighting
character traits of men and women “who have made a difference,” and focusing on character in
writing and speaking activities, made character education part of instruction every day. An annual
state conference coordinated by CYC entitled "Building Communities and Schools of Character"
provided information about other exemplary character education programs and practices. As part of
the pilot project, the California Council for the Social Studies published a journal, Character
Education, which was sent to all districts and county offices of education in the state and to all
members of the council. A page on the California Department of Education’s Web site was created,
pointing users to character education resources, a bibliography and programs. While each school site
plan for character education in the project was unique, the project identified similarities or "key
elements" which can serve as lessons for others looking to establish character education programs.
One thing California learned was that character education has an impact on the school's
organizational culture and values and how a school operates. One challenge for this project
regarding a quality research study was the difficulty in collecting uniform assessment data because
each program was unique to its specific school environment. Programs could not be assessed
adequately across these different environments, which made it difficult to draw quantitative
conclusions on the impact of character education. The California pilot project, with its multiagency
involvement, continues as a sustained partnership.
Marlena Uhrik
State Web site
MUhrik@cde.ca.gov
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/yd/ce
Colorado
Partnerships in Character Education
1998–2002
The Colorado grant project focused on 10 elementary schools and results taught the grantees six
important lessons that were shared with school districts statewide. These lessons were: 1) the need
for leadership by principals; 2) the importance of teaching staff support; 3) the need for a vision
created by principal, staff and parents; 4) the need for more than just adoption of a preset character
education curriculum; 5) the need for modeling of character traits by staff, parents and the
community; and 6) the need to integrate character traits into the existing curriculum. In 1999, the
15
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Colorado State Board of Education adopted a resolution encouraging schools to establish character
education programs (Colorado State Board of Education, 1999). At the local level, each school
brought together parents, community leaders, teachers and administrators to develop a vision for
character education in the school. The schools then took a year to implement their visions. This
important step allowed all participants to have ownership in the program. The grantees found that
three years were necessary for integrating character education into the environment of a school.
Charles Elbot
State Web site
Charles_Elbot@dpsk12.org
http://www.cde.state.co.us
Connecticut
Partnerships in Character Education
1996–2000
The state formed a partnership with 12 out of over 100 local school districts to develop
comprehensive character education program models that could sustain themselves within local
communities and assist in improving education achievement. Program development was focused at
the local level. The State Department of Education provided assistance, guidance and funding for
local schools to develop programs that were representative of their needs and abilities. The focus was
on embedding character education into the school’s ethos so that it was not treated as separate
content. Efforts to integrate character education into school policies, environment, curriculum and
after-school activities created an emphasis on more than just programs and activities. School culture
was changed. “Aspects of Character” became part of Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning,
which comprises the state standards. Teachers from all content areas work to ensure that students
are able to meet these standards. This state effort illustrated that character education could not be
too programmatic. One challenge encountered during the project was ensuring that the statewide
coalition adequately addressed the long-term needs of students. In the beginning, when the effort
was focused on building a statewide organization, the emphasis was on fund-raising. The decision
was made to dissolve the statewide initiative and support local site development. Successful strategies
under the grant were those that were aligned with curricula and did not focus solely on monetary
rewards or posters and banners with character education themes.
Jo Ann Freiberg
State Web site
JoAnn.Freiberg@ct.gov
http://www.sde.ct.gov
16
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
District of Columbia
Character Education Initiative
2000–05
The District of Columbia Pilot Project grant was used to implement character education in the 11
schools selected as pilots for this project. Coordinators in the schools studied information locally
and nationally to identify best practices for their students. From the beginning, the pilot schools
focused on collecting data to determine the processes being used to effectively integrate character
education into the school environment. The pilot schools also held monthly coordinators’ meetings
to share information about program progress. Another priority was training and providing resources
to all school communities including parents and other stakeholders. The goal of this pilot effort was
to create a replicable model for use in all D.C. schools. During the Pilot Project, the D.C. staff
learned that there were many curricula and materials in the character education field from which
schools may choose. However, the challenge they discovered was that few character education
models were research-based, thereby lacking information regarding their effectiveness.
Karen Skipper
District Web site
karen.skipper@k12.dc.us
http://seo.dc.gov
Florida
Florida’s Partnerships in Character Education
2001–05
Florida established a statewide partnership for program operation and support. The partnership was
comprised of representatives from the Florida Department of Education, Consortium for Social
Responsibility and Character Education at University of Central Florida, Florida Learn & Serve at
Florida State University (FSU) and the Center for Civic Education & Service at FSU. The
partnership established a statewide resource center at the University of Central Florida to assist
schools in training and assessment of civic and character education. Professional development
training was held at both regional and state levels. Another important accomplishment of the
Florida effort has been the development of relationships among stakeholders, such as the state
department of education, district supervisors, university faculty, pupil-services advisors, teachers,
school guidance and mental health counselors, parents, students and community members.
Equalizing participation among partner districts was a challenge for the project. Increased on-site
support helped to bring more consistency in program implementation across participating schools.
Levon Terrell
State Web site
Levon.Terrell@fldoe.org
http://www.fldoe.org
17
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Pr
civic virtue
caring
giving
trustworthiness
fairness justice respect
responsibility
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001
Lessons Learned
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
2008
This publication was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No.
ED-04-CO-0072/0001 with support from Pacific Institute for Research and
Evaluation; Contract No. ED-03-PO-2981 with support from Caliber Associates;
and with support from Bill Duncan, consultant to the Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, U.S. Department of Education. Rita Foy Moss served as the contracting
officer’s representative (COR) for Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, and
Paul Kesner served as the COR for Caliber Associates. The content of this report
does not necessarily reflect the view or policies of the U.S. Department of
Education, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial products or
organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. government. This publication also
contains URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations. This
information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of
Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance,
timeliness or completeness of this outside information. Further, the inclusion of
information or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, nor is it
intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.
U.S. Department of Education
Margaret Spellings
Secretary
Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools
Deborah A. Price
Assistant Deputy Secretary
March 2008
This publication is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or
in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the
citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free
Schools, Character Education and Civic Engagement Technical Assistance Center,
Partnerships in Character Education, State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001: Lessons Learned,
Washington, D.C., 2008.
To download this publication:
See the Department’s Web sites:
http://www.ed.gov/programs/charactered/lessons.html and
http://www.cetac.org/documents/Publications/DOE_StatePilot.pdf.
On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large
print or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the Department’s
Alternate Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818.
ii
Contents
List of Illustrations
iv
Acknowledgments
v
Introduction
Methodology
Results
1
2
2
Key Findings—The Lessons Learned
Project Goals
Successful Strategies
Challenges
4
4
5
7
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
Recommendations
Looking to the Future: Ongoing Support for Character Education
9
9
10
10
State Roll Call: What the States Accomplished With Pilot Project
Grants, 1995–2001
12
Appendix A. Analysis of State Pilot Project Information
39
Appendix B. U.S. Department of Education Additional Resources
Related to Character Education
49
Bibliography
50
iii
Illustrations
Exhibit 1.
Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 3.
Exhibit 4.
Exhibit 5.
Exhibit 6.
Exhibit 7.
Exhibit 8.
Table 1.
Character Education 1995–2001 State Pilot Project Goals by
Number of Grantees Who Selected the Goal, and by Category
40
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Project Strategy
42
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Program Approach
43
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Project Focus
44
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Successful Implementation Factor
45
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Data Collection Strategy
46
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Type of Materials or Resources Developed
47
Number of Grantees Implementing Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Projects by Sustainability Factors Thought to Be of
Most Importance
48
Number and Percentage of Character Education 1995–2001
State Pilot Project Grantees by Goal
41
iv
Acknowledgments
The Department is pleased to report this information about the Partnerships in
Character Education State Pilot Projects and congratulates each of the grantees for its
effort toward implementing community-based character education in our nation's
public schools.
We express sincere thanks to the grantees for the enthusiasm and spirit they showed
in sharing their lessons learned in implementing character education and for the time
they spent providing information for this report. These early projects pioneered
approaches to character education frameworks, processes, methodology, and
evaluation—paving the way for a renewed commitment to character education in our
nation's schools.
We are especially grateful to Diane Brooks, first project director for the California
Partnership for Character Education State Pilot Project; Kristie Fink, project director
for the Utah Community Partnership for Character Development State Pilot Project;
and Sally Caldwell and Robert Moody, who were part of Missouri’s Character
Education Pilot Project team, for their thoughtful and thorough comments. As the
language of the legislation envisioned, this has been a partnership across America.
v
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Introduction
C
HARACTER includes the emotional, intellectual and moral qualities of a person or group as
well as the demonstration of these qualities in prosocial behavior. Character education is an inclusive
term encompassing all aspects of how schools, related social institutions and parents can support the
positive character development of children and adults. Character education teaches the habits of
thought and deed that help people live and work together as families, friends, neighbors,
communities and nations.
Throughout the history of public education in America, our schools have reflected the values and
beliefs of the communities they serve. Instruction and lessons in the classroom frequently reinforced
these ideas while delivering the basic skills and knowledge of the curriculum. Today, this heritage is
reflected with a new emphasis on character education.
The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 created the Partnerships in Character Education
Pilot Project (Pilot Project; see Sec. 10103) and authorized up to a total of 10 grants annually to
state education agencies (SEAs) for the design and implementation of character education projects.
The Pilot Project program is supported by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S.
Department of Education.
The legislation included a specification that the states must involve parents, students and
members of the community in the design and implementation of grant projects. It also called for
comprehensive evaluations of programs developed by grantees. The law specified certain elements of
character to be the focus of grant projects and deemed it important that local communities define
those elements. These elements as listed in the law are: caring, civic virtue and citizenship, justice,
fairness, respect, responsibility and trustworthiness. These traits could be supplemented by other
elements identified at the local level. The legislation required that character education be integrated
into the curriculum and called for the training of teachers. The state agencies were required to
provide technical assistance to local education agencies (LEAs) in implementing character education.
Additionally, the legislation called for grantees to establish state clearinghouses to provide
information on model programs, materials and other resources that SEAs and LEAs could use in
implementing character education.
The Pilot Project also provided funding for SEAs to join with local schools, parents, students and
communities to design and implement character education projects. Under the Pilot Project,
program grants were awarded to 45 states and the District of Columbia. The pilot projects were
initiated across the country from 1995 to 2001, with the most recent of the five-year grants ending
in 2006. Many of the programs funded by these grants continue today.
The results presented in this report are the lessons learned as educators, parents and communities
implemented character education in schools across the states. Knowing what the states did during
the Pilot Project to support implementation efforts provides important background as additional
SEAs and LEAs go forward with the Department’s current support for character education.
1
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Methodology
Partnerships in Character Education, State Pilot Projects, 1995–2001: Lessons Learned summarizes
the results of the projects as reported to the U.S. Department of Education by the grantees through a
variety of sources. Information for this report was assembled from reviews of project performance
and evaluation reports, from discussions with grantees, and from an analysis of grantee responses to a
survey from the Department. The Pilot Project grantees reported accomplishments that contributed
to the continuation of developing and sustaining character education in schools, communities and
the states after the grants ended. The states also tested activities that enabled them to assess character
education program success and to document the challenges to effective implementation.
As part of the process of preparing this Pilot Project report, the Department asked each grantee
to respond to a survey that listed a number of descriptors regarding the components of their separate
projects. Respondents were allowed to check as many items in each category as applied to their grant
projects. Appendix A (beginning on p. 39) contains a basic analysis of the reporting of those factors
that were mentioned most frequently by the grantees as important to their projects, with a summary
of results provided below.
Distinctions may be helpful in understanding two aspects related to information in this report.
First, the report refers to two different federal grant programs related to character education. The
Partnerships in Character Education Pilot Project relates to the legislative time period of 1995–2001.
Because these grants were funded for up to five years, the last group of grantees has just completed
their projects within the last two years. For the purpose of this report, this entire group will be
referred to as Pilot Project grants. Beginning in 2001, new legislation created the current initiative,
Partnerships in Character Education Program (PCEP), which was authorized as part of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and amended by the No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 (NCLB; see Sec. 5431). In this report, this program will be referred to by its acronym,
PCEP.
Second, program and project are not used interchangeably in this report. Program is defined as a
course of academic study, a curriculum or a system of academic and related activities (e.g., a servicelearning program). Some states report on a “menu” of programs, which is usually a list of approved
curricula from which local districts could select to implement during the funding period. Others
mention a “framework for a comprehensive process” or “a comprehensive approach,” indicating a set
of strategies and curriculum that involve students and key people who influence them—parents,
teachers, administrators, and community members. Project refers to a planned set of activities within
a given time frame that includes defined goals, objectives and deadlines; in this case, as set out in a
written proposal to a department of education at the federal or state level.
Results
What emerged from this process was evidence of a high degree of agreement among the
projects—not only on what they tried to do, but how they tried to accomplish it, and what impact it
had. For example, every project used professional development of staff as an essential means to
achieving the goals of the project (see exhibit 2, p. 42).
2
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
This report provides: 1) background information regarding the importance of character
education in schools; 2) key findings and trends as reported by the state pilot projects, including
goals, successful practices and challenges; and 3) recommendations based on the reports from the
states. The State Roll Call section provides a state-by-state summary of each pilot project, which
often provides details about specific challenges or effective program components. Finally, the
appendix displays an analysis of the data reported in a series of illustrations that include project
goals, type of project strategy, program approaches, type of project focus, successful
implementation factors, type of data collection, materials or resources developed, and
sustainability factors. [Click on any type of illustration to view its contents.]
3
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Key Findings—The Lessons Learned
T
HE SIGNIFICANT results reported by a majority of the states that had state Pilot Project
grants included (1) the development of character education models and (2) the exploration of
strategies for implementing character education. The pioneering efforts of grantees during the Pilot
Project revealed common themes in the state projects, which encompassed many similar goals, found
certain practices widely successful, and identified common needs for future efforts.
While state initiatives supported by the grants used existing national resources (such as
measurement tools, curricula and training techniques), they also created their own. These initiatives
provided some preliminary and anecdotal data on the impact of character education programs. In
some cases, the projects allowed grantees to leverage additional funding from other public and
private sources, as noted in the State Roll Call section. The grants led to new character education
resources, such as journal publications, professional networks, professional workshops and
conferences. Finally, many grant efforts have resulted in state clearinghouses to support character
education at the local level.
The impact of this federal funding is apparent, as almost all states reported that their efforts in
character education have continued since the grants ended. Summarized here are the goals,
successful practices and challenges reported by the states. More detailed descriptions of each state’s
pilot project are available at: http://www.cetac.org/resources/pilotgrantees.cfm.
Project Goals
In the process of seeking a grant, SEAs developed specific goals for their character education
efforts. The nine most commonly identified goals set out in grant applications were:
1. Changing students’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and actions regarding elements of
character education;
2. Reducing the number of disciplinary incidents in schools;
3. Improving academic achievement;
4. Improving the climate of individual schools;
5. Increasing community involvement in character education;
6. Increasing family involvement by gaining parental input and support, and by linking the
character education effort to the home;
7. Increasing school attendance by making the school environment safer, friendlier and
more positive;
8. Increasing opportunities for service-learning programs, which allow students to employ
character education concepts in real-life situations; and
9. Changing teacher knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and actions related to character
education.
4
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
See exhibit 1 (p. 40) and table 1 (p. 41) for more information on project goals [to go to
these illustrations, click on the exhibit 1 and table 1 in bold].
Successful Strategies
Perhaps the most important lesson to emerge from the Pilot Project reports was that successful
character education requires the participation of the entire community. Collectively, the states
reported that implementation must include the entire school community and be integrated
throughout the entire school curriculum and culture. This was achieved by:
Bringing school staff, parents, students and community representatives together to
identify and define the elements of character to be emphasized;
Providing training for staff on integrating character education into the culture of the
school;
Forming partnerships with parents and communities so consistent messages would be
sent to students; and
Modeling character traits by all adults in the school, home and community.
There were many strategies common among the state projects. Here, in the order of frequency,
are the strategies that were most often reported by the states:
Professional Development. Every report emphasized the importance of professional
development for all staff. The projects reported substantial efforts to train school staff in what
constitutes quality character education as well as how the efforts could be assessed. Training
topics focused on connecting character education to curriculum and state standards. Schools
used professional development time allocated in district calendars as well as seminar events,
conferences and online courses for training teachers.
Curriculum Development. The states reported that successfully implemented projects involved
the creation or adoption of curriculum to teach character education and strategies to integrate it
into the curriculum. Whether created wholly in the state or adapted from existing national or
local resources, the materials and methodology springing from state efforts allowed character
education programs to move from vision to reality.
Consensus Building and Community Engagement. Although most schools and communities
found common themes in terms of the characteristics they identified as essential character traits,
the grantees often noted the importance of the process of building consensus about these traits as
well as the process to instill them. The effort to bring together relevant members of the
community, especially parents and educators, increased the feeling of ownership in the character
education effort. The reports indicated that community leaders provided vital support and
vision for character education by clearly articulating the importance of character development to
the youths of a community. These leaders reported that youths’ community participation was an
important positive influence on student acceptance of character education. Projects that
reported successful implementation of character education often included community
participants in program design and implementation. In all of the above examples, community
5
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
members who were involved in the grants were asked to make a commitment to be part of the
character education process.
Steering Committees. Since successful character education requires community involvement,
steering committees were used by most state projects to provide a vehicle for involving a broad
base of community members, which include representatives from law enforcement, chambers of
commerce, businesses, social service and health agencies, faith-based organizations, parents and
students. Every state participating in the grant program used some type of steering committee,
task force, advisory council or advisory committee to ensure that key community decisionmakers and leaders were engaged in the effort. Although the composition of such committees
varied among states, each structure allowed individuals in the community to have an investment
in the success of the project.
Family Involvement. Based on the reports from the states, when families had opportunities to
participate in their children’s character education programs and received support in doing so, the
programs were more likely to be perceived successful. Effective projects allowed families to
participate by offering them training or by including them in the design and delivery of the
initiatives. Families were included in state efforts by: acting as resources for schools, being
informed of developments through newsletters or reports, and serving on steering committees.
Student Engagement. Examples of student involvement in character education reported by the
states included service-learning programs and leadership roles in character education efforts. A
number of states created opportunities for students to learn while performing communityassistance projects. Some states provided leadership roles for students through creating studentedited newsletters about character, developing student advisory councils related to character
education, and providing opportunities to serve as mentors and role models.
A final, overarching strategy emerged during discussions with the states about their reports—a
concept that most states agreed was an appropriate summary for successful practices:
Comprehensive Approach. Most grantees emphasized the importance of changing a school’s entire
culture in order to make a difference in building character in students. In fact, integrating character
education into the entire curriculum was actually a requirement for receiving a Pilot Project grant;
the state reports validated the requirement. The consensus conclusion was that to be successful,
character education must be comprehensive and has to become a part of every aspect of a school’s
environment. Further, the states reported that their character education projects could not work if
they were not consistent with state academic content standards. Most reports indicated that the goal
was to ensure that character education is not just a single subject, but rather something that is an
integral part of school life.
See Appendix A, exhibit 2 (p. 42), for more on successful strategies.
6
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Challenges
The information provided by the Pilot Project grantees also identified challenges to successful
implementation of character education. A compilation of the challenges revealed that many of the
states faced similar problems. Because many states found successful ways of meeting these
challenges, a primary objective of this report is to summarize the information so other schools and
communities can benefit from the lessons learned. Feedback from the grantees and their reports
describe common challenges and potential strategies for overcoming them:
Time Constraints. Developing a new effort required significant time of all staff and particularly
of teachers, who already had numerous responsibilities demanding their attention. Curriculum
development and publicizing the effort also took time. In response to this challenge, project
coordinators emphasized the importance of training to effectively integrate character education
into the curriculum. High-level training focused on how a teacher operates a class or how a
principal leads a school. Teachers also were encouraged to look for “teachable moments” during
lessons to discuss or engage students in talking about character traits and values. In some areas,
training events were held throughout the year to allow staff to attend without significant school
interruptions. Schools also made an effort to narrow their focus initially so that the effort did
not require new commitment that would be overwhelming.
Assessment. The challenges of evaluating the projects and assessing the effectiveness of specific
programs were commonly expressed in the state reports. At the beginning of the Pilot Project,
very few valid evaluation instruments for character education were available. The assessment
process was different from state to state because no uniform assessment model was available. In
some cases, schools lacked baseline data to make comparisons and, thus, measure improvement.
To accomplish the goals of their projects, the states had to strike a balance between achieving
implementation and evaluation goals at the local level. However, the states’ efforts did develop
some assessment tools and measures. The reports of the Pilot Project indicated that more
sophisticated measures would be used in future implementations of character education, which
has been substantiated by the projects that are ongoing in current PCEP grants.
Academic Priorities. States reported discovering that development of good student character
and positive school climate are at the core of learning and help to create an environment in
which academic achievement is maximized. They had to respond to criticism that a character
education program detracts from academic priorities and state learning requirements. They
pointed out that the authorizing legislation for the grants required character education activities
be integrated into the existing curriculum rather than added on as a separate, competing demand
on time and attention. The states also reported that schools commonly made excellent progress
toward fully integrating character education into all aspects of a school, including policies,
teaching practices, curriculum, assessment, literature and informal settings (e.g., lunchroom,
after-school activities, sporting events and school buses).
Staff Support. The states learned that it takes truly significant commitment from school faculty
and staff, as well as from those in the general community, for character education to be
successful. They learned that it cannot succeed if there is a lack of cooperation between
administrators and teachers or between school officials and community leaders. They said
7
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
administrative support, particularly of the school principals, was a key factor. Project
coordinators strove to include community, faculty and staff participation in planning activities
and frequently elicited input from each of these sources frequently. Disruption in
implementation caused by high staff turnover was another challenge reported by the states. The
challenge was addressed by offering staff development on a continuous basis so the project could
continue even when there were staff changes. Participation among all or most staff members was
another technique to alleviate the challenge of having a key person leave the team.
Budget Constraints. Although the Pilot Project grants funded activities for up to five years,
sustaining any significant education program thereafter required new or reallocated funding. In
many cases, the character education project had to compete with other state budget priorities.
States faced with this challenge learned to use the community as an alternative source of funds.
States also attempted to hold down costs by producing reusable materials, by expanding the use
of the Internet for resources, and by increasing the use of technology for training and
communication. Some grantees suggested that having a project with a more narrow focus or
requiring more stringent accountability to the funding agency would have helped address budget
constraints.
8
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Conclusions and Recommendations
A
NEW EMPHASIS on character education at elementary and secondary levels in our
education system was the most important result of the Pilot Project. Federal support brought
character education to the forefront as an important topic of discussion in schools, communities,
teacher training efforts, college education departments, and in the national arena. The grant funding
encouraged states to commit staff time and resources to character education. Some states reported
that this contributed indirectly to the implementation of state legislation requiring that schools pay
attention to character development as part of their work toward educating young people. Today, the
National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) reports that 27 states have statutes that mandate or
encourage character education be taught in school (NCSL, 2007).
The reports by the states in the Pilot Project expressed two common occurrences. First, the
grants funded the development and initial testing of site-based character education models for local
schools. Second, the grants contributed to increased awareness of the local school’s mission to
provide character education in the community, which resulted in closer collaboration of schools,
home and community, as well as the development of shared visions and ways of speaking about good
character.
The Pilot Project grants enabled the states to cast a wide net in designing and implementing
character education. They could experiment and innovate. During the multiyear projects, the states
moved from the early stages of development and gaining experience to the stage of evaluation of
programs and ideas so that best practices could be identified.
The Pilot Project grants evolved into an effort that is now ongoing in nearly all the states. In
many states, models for character education have been developed and undergone initial testing. In
addition, because of the grant efforts, publications and other informational resources are available for
teachers. Curricula have been developed that allow character education to be integrated with other
academic standards. Thus, many programs developed during the Pilot Project grants are in their
“second generation.”
NCLB provided additional funding for the Department’s successor, the PCEP, for both state and
local education authorities. Ninety-seven projects, in addition to the pilots focused upon in this
report, are now in various stages of implementation, including a number with scientific researchbased evaluation plans to measure more rigorously the impact of the programs.
Conclusions
The Pilot Project legislation authorized by Congress in 1994 was an important first step in
defining and promoting the shared responsibility of character education. This initial effort was
fruitful—and helped other states and localities recognize their responsibility. “Character education”
emerged as an inclusive concept for dealing with numerous ways in which schools and communities
could support the development of character in children and youths. While character development
remains primarily a family responsibility, results of the Pilot Project indicate that schools and
individual classrooms have direct and significant influence; that the entire community must be
involved; and that it is truly a shared responsibility among students, parents, teachers and the
community at large.
9
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Recommendations
Seven important needs were identified and discussed during the Department’s analysis of
information provided by the states that participated in the Pilot Project:
1. Sharing Success—The stories of both the successes and the challenges of the state efforts
should be compiled and made available to educators—hence, the creation of this publication.
Such an effort ultimately could result in a model resource that gives general and flexible
guidelines for the development of character education programs.
2. Promoting of Leadership—Ways to encourage and sustain leadership for character
education must be found. State reports indicated that strong, visible leadership at both the
state and local levels was essential to integrating character education into a school’s culture
and curriculum.
3. Evaluating the Effects—The relative impact on school climate, teacher efficacy,
involvement of parents and community, and other components of character education
programs should be measured to determine the level of success of each, using both process
and outcome evaluation methods and valid, reliable survey instruments.
4. Developing Secondary School Programs—There should be more focus on developing
models for character education in middle and high schools.
5. Continuing Research—Scientific research studies should continue in order to provide
scientifically based evaluation of character education processes and programs, thus increasing
knowledge about the potential effect of strategies on outcomes.
6. Standardizing Student Outcome Data—The reports of the states in the Pilot Project
provided anecdotal evidence and some formal summative evaluations that indicated that
students experienced great benefits from the character education programs, leading to safer
schools and improved academic achievement. However, there is a need for standardized
measurements and reports about changes in student outcomes as they relate to the impact of
character education.
7. Ensuring Community Involvement—Because it is clear that only efforts with high levels of
community and parental involvement are likely to be successful, character education
programs and processes must be broad-based and adaptable so that all members of a
community can identify with and participate in them.
Looking to the Future: Ongoing Support for Character Education
To continue the Department’s support of character education, PCEP was authorized in 2001 as
part of NCLB and was significantly enhanced with a major increase in annual funding from up to $8
million to $25 million per year. Now, instead of just SEAs, LEAs also could apply for grants,
allowing individual school districts to gain support to develop programs at the grassroots level.
The program also was enhanced by a provision giving full authority to grantees to select the
elements of character addressed in the grant projects. It has continued the emphasis on partnerships
between home, school and community, as well as the focus on integrating character education into a
10
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
school's curricula and teaching methods. Projects now are required to be consistent with state
academic content standards, to be founded on scientifically based research, and to include students
with disabilities.
Today, PCEP grants authorized by NCLB are helping local school districts nationwide—as part
of our shared responsibility for character education.
11
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
State Roll Call: What the States Accomplished With
Pilot Project Grants, 1995–2001
L
OCAL EFFORTS and initiatives were key to the success of character education.
Therefore, one step in preparing this report was to ask for input from states that received a grant
under the Pilot Project. Each of the 46 grantees responded to surveys seeking information about
significant accomplishments, lasting contributions to character education, activities that were
effective, and challenges to effectiveness. Information in this report was assembled by the
Department from analysis of grantee responses to that survey, from review of project performance
and evaluation reports, and from discussions with grantees.
State responses illustrated significant accomplishments of the Pilot Project grants. First, the
grants funded the development and initial testing of a number of character education models for
schools. Second, the grants contributed to increased awareness of the schools’ mission to provide
character education in the community, which resulted in closer collaboration of schools, home and
community, as well as the development of shared visions and ways of speaking about character.
State initiatives supported by the grants provided new resources, such as measurement tools, new
curricula and training techniques. These initiatives created pilot, exploratory and anecdotal data on
the impact of character education programs. In some cases, the projects allowed grantees to leverage
additional funding from other public and private sources. The grants also have helped to create
other resources, such as journals, professional networks, professional workshops and conferences.
Finally, many grant efforts have resulted in creation of state clearinghouses to support character
education at the local level.
What follows is a brief summary of each state’s Partnerships in Character Education Pilot grant.
Each state summary is followed by a person’s contact information, the state’s department of
education Web site, and any Web sites with dedicated character education Web pages or
information.* Web sites were current as of March 2008.
*All state Web site addresses following each state report can be clicked for direct access. However, if you have difficulty with
access due to a dial-up connection, please copy the address and paste it directly into the URL space on your computer screen.
If the Web address has more than one line, copy each line of the address only to the last character of the line, and carefully paste
it directly next to the previously copied characters in the URL space.
If you have any difficulty, please contact CETAC at 866-402-3822 for assistance.
12
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Alabama
The Alabama Character Education Project
2001–05
Alabama’s grant focused on the identification of educators from across the state to develop best
practices and training for character education. These educators became part of the state training
corps and began presenting at the annual State Character Education Showcase, where successful
strategies and materials are shared, in the first year of the grant. These trainers also were available
throughout the state to provide instruction on a comprehensive character education framework, best
practices in instruction, and a menu of resources aligned to state-required character traits for students
to know about and understand. In 1995, the Alabama legislature passed an act (Code of Alabama
1975, sec. 16-6B-2[h]) that requires public schools to spend not less than 10 minutes a day on
instruction related to character and civic education. The grant provided resources to help meet this
state requirement. An important component of the Alabama effort was the funding of school sites
where best practices, training and resource development could take place. When individual partners
shared their best ideas with other partners, the resulting concepts proved invaluable in the training of
the educator corps.
Carol Crawford
State Web site
ccrawford@alsde.edu
http://www.alsde.edu
Alaska
The Character Education Program for Alaska
1998–2001
The activities sponsored by the grant were coordinated by the Alaska Department of Education and
Early Development. The department disseminated character education materials statewide,
including a course curriculum developed at the University of Alaska, which delivered credited
courses for teachers and other training for parents and members of the community. The T.O.P.S.
(Training of Promoters and Storytellers) for Building Assets program, an ongoing effort, was
administered with the Association of Alaska School Boards, a department partner. Particular success
stemmed from pilot programs developed in the Matanuska-Susitna (Mat-Su) and Chugach school
districts. The Chugach program integrated character education into the curriculum and received the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award in 2001 for performance excellence and quality
achievement.
Paul R. Prussing
State Web site
paul.prussing@alaska.gov
http://www.eed.state.ak.us
13
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Arizona
Arizona Partnerships in Character Education
2001–04
Because Arizona schools had no state funds for character education, the Pilot Project grant gave
schools the necessary resources to develop character education programs and increased the visibility
of these programs throughout the state. The grant allowed local school districts to integrate
character education into individual school discipline and improvement plans. Thus, character
education became a part of the foundation of local schools. Arizona found that a comprehensive
approach to character education was important and integral to the school environment. One initial
challenge involved the logistics of working with a university partner, although increased
communication and collaboration alleviated this challenge.
Tammy Linn
State Web site
tammy.linn@azed.gov
http://www.ade.az.gov/charactered
Arkansas
Partnership for Character-Centered Teaching in Arkansas
2001–03
Arkansas concentrated on Character-Centered Teaching, which helped integrate character
development throughout the curricula. The emphasis on character education in the state resulted in
legislation that requires the Arkansas Department of Education to provide resources (e.g., training, a
handbook) for all schools to implement character-centered teaching. The grant supported statewide
character education training and the creation of a handbook entitled Character-Centered Teaching:
Six Steps to Becoming a Model Program (Marrazo, n.d.) for schools. All Arkansas school districts have
been trained in the implementation and integration of character education. State evaluation of
character education helped assess the effectiveness of programs before further implementation. The
grantee noted, however, that implementation was more difficult at the higher-grade levels than in
elementary schools due to the materials not being age appropriate. To remedy this, teachers were
shown how to revamp character education activities, thereby making them more appropriate for
higher grades.
Reginald Wilson
State Web site
Reginald.Wilson@arkansas.gov
http://arkedu.state.ar.us/curriculum/cct.html
14
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
California
California Partnership for Character Education
1995–2000
The California Department of Education formed a partnership with the Sacramento County Office
of Education, the Center for Youth Citizenship (CYC) and six schools districts to carry out a grant
heavily based on staff development for teachers and community members to implement character
education at participating school sites. Due to the success of California's innovative curricular
frameworks, California’s application focused on the integration of character education in all K–12
curricula, particularly history-social science and English-language arts. For example, highlighting
character traits of men and women “who have made a difference,” and focusing on character in
writing and speaking activities, made character education part of instruction every day. An annual
state conference coordinated by CYC entitled "Building Communities and Schools of Character"
provided information about other exemplary character education programs and practices. As part of
the pilot project, the California Council for the Social Studies published a journal, Character
Education, which was sent to all districts and county offices of education in the state and to all
members of the council. A page on the California Department of Education’s Web site was created,
pointing users to character education resources, a bibliography and programs. While each school site
plan for character education in the project was unique, the project identified similarities or "key
elements" which can serve as lessons for others looking to establish character education programs.
One thing California learned was that character education has an impact on the school's
organizational culture and values and how a school operates. One challenge for this project
regarding a quality research study was the difficulty in collecting uniform assessment data because
each program was unique to its specific school environment. Programs could not be assessed
adequately across these different environments, which made it difficult to draw quantitative
conclusions on the impact of character education. The California pilot project, with its multiagency
involvement, continues as a sustained partnership.
Marlena Uhrik
State Web site
MUhrik@cde.ca.gov
http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/yd/ce
Colorado
Partnerships in Character Education
1998–2002
The Colorado grant project focused on 10 elementary schools and results taught the grantees six
important lessons that were shared with school districts statewide. These lessons were: 1) the need
for leadership by principals; 2) the importance of teaching staff support; 3) the need for a vision
created by principal, staff and parents; 4) the need for more than just adoption of a preset character
education curriculum; 5) the need for modeling of character traits by staff, parents and the
community; and 6) the need to integrate character traits into the existing curriculum. In 1999, the
15
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
Colorado State Board of Education adopted a resolution encouraging schools to establish character
education programs (Colorado State Board of Education, 1999). At the local level, each school
brought together parents, community leaders, teachers and administrators to develop a vision for
character education in the school. The schools then took a year to implement their visions. This
important step allowed all participants to have ownership in the program. The grantees found that
three years were necessary for integrating character education into the environment of a school.
Charles Elbot
State Web site
Charles_Elbot@dpsk12.org
http://www.cde.state.co.us
Connecticut
Partnerships in Character Education
1996–2000
The state formed a partnership with 12 out of over 100 local school districts to develop
comprehensive character education program models that could sustain themselves within local
communities and assist in improving education achievement. Program development was focused at
the local level. The State Department of Education provided assistance, guidance and funding for
local schools to develop programs that were representative of their needs and abilities. The focus was
on embedding character education into the school’s ethos so that it was not treated as separate
content. Efforts to integrate character education into school policies, environment, curriculum and
after-school activities created an emphasis on more than just programs and activities. School culture
was changed. “Aspects of Character” became part of Connecticut’s Common Core of Learning,
which comprises the state standards. Teachers from all content areas work to ensure that students
are able to meet these standards. This state effort illustrated that character education could not be
too programmatic. One challenge encountered during the project was ensuring that the statewide
coalition adequately addressed the long-term needs of students. In the beginning, when the effort
was focused on building a statewide organization, the emphasis was on fund-raising. The decision
was made to dissolve the statewide initiative and support local site development. Successful strategies
under the grant were those that were aligned with curricula and did not focus solely on monetary
rewards or posters and banners with character education themes.
Jo Ann Freiberg
State Web site
JoAnn.Freiberg@ct.gov
http://www.sde.ct.gov
16
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Projects
District of Columbia
Character Education Initiative
2000–05
The District of Columbia Pilot Project grant was used to implement character education in the 11
schools selected as pilots for this project. Coordinators in the schools studied information locally
and nationally to identify best practices for their students. From the beginning, the pilot schools
focused on collecting data to determine the processes being used to effectively integrate character
education into the school environment. The pilot schools also held monthly coordinators’ meetings
to share information about program progress. Another priority was training and providing resources
to all school communities including parents and other stakeholders. The goal of this pilot effort was
to create a replicable model for use in all D.C. schools. During the Pilot Project, the D.C. staff
learned that there were many curricula and materials in the character education field from which
schools may choose. However, the challenge they discovered was that few character education
models were research-based, thereby lacking information regarding their effectiveness.
Karen Skipper
District Web site
karen.skipper@k12.dc.us
http://seo.dc.gov
Florida
Florida’s Partnerships in Character Education
2001–05
Florida established a statewide partnership for program operation and support. The partnership was
comprised of representatives from the Florida Department of Education, Consortium for Social
Responsibility and Character Education at University of Central Florida, Florida Learn & Serve at
Florida State University (FSU) and the Center for Civic Education & Service at FSU. The
partnership established a statewide resource center at the University of Central Florida to assist
schools in training and assessment of civic and character education. Professional development
training was held at both regional and state levels. Another important accomplishment of the
Florida effort has been the development of relationships among stakeholders, such as the state
department of education, district supervisors, university faculty, pupil-services advisors, teachers,
school guidance and mental health counselors, parents, students and community members.
Equalizing participation among partner districts was a challenge for the project. Increased on-site
support helped to bring more consistency in program implementation across participating schools.
Levon Terrell
State Web site
Levon.Terrell@fldoe.org
http://www.fldoe.org
17
Partnerships in Character Education
State Pilot Pr